45
face”. Therefore, communicators manage to weaken face threatening situations by using a series of strategies which include euphemism.
This researcher is of the opinion that the present study may have benefited from the comparison of English and Chinese euphemisms if euphemism was investigated from that perspective. However, the current study has still benefitted greatly from the previous study in, for instance, the definition of euphemism as a way of communication and related it to Tshivenḓa in terms of belief, attitude, custom, behaviour and social habits which all contribute to culture. The communicative function of euphemism in the comparative study is to avoid taboo, show politeness, keeping face and use of pleasant, mild or indirect words to replace more accurate or direct ones which also applies to the current study. Politeness and ‘face saving’ are some of the theories which have been used in the previous study and have also been utilised in the current research of a socio-pragmatic analysis of Tshivenḓa euphemisms – as are some of the above categories of euphemisms.
46
refer to - depending on interlocutors’ experience, i.e., shared context. Speakers of Sesotho are able to communicate with non-referring expressions because they have a shared knowledge of these words. For example, the word “Lihele” for hell creates a schema or a picture in one’s head. According to Liketso (2001), in semantic theory non-referring expressions are not wrong but they have a truth condition of being either true or false and failure would lead to the occurrence of misunderstandings. It may, therefore, be true that euphemisms have to do with a shared context and background knowledge of the speakers.
In her conclusion, Liketso (2001) observes that Sesotho non-referring expressions acquire meaning by association with the objects or individuals that they refer to - done on the basis of the interlocutors’ shared experience. In addition, sentences that contain non-referring expressions are considered to have truth conditions; thus, they could be evaluated as true or false. She alludes to the fact that speakers of Sesotho are able to communicate using non referring expressions because they have a common knowledge of these words. However, in cases where the speaker and hearer does not have the same referent for an expression, they have to explain their perceptions of such terms to each other, otherwise communication is likely to fail.
These findings are applicable to this research on the socio-pragmatic analysis of Tshivenḓa euphemisms where references to certain words and phrases will have to be dictated in a shared context and background knowledge between or among speakers. The current study could have been investigated using the Semantic Theory but had a different dimension of interest for the researcher. Liketso (2001:44) examines taboo, in comprehension, interlocutors’ experience and shared knowledge and this study investigated how applicable all these could be to the socio-pragmatic analysis of Tshivenḓa euphemisms.
Another study of euphemism referred to by Mwanambuyu (2011:47), The Semantic Interpretation of Sesotho Idiomatic Expressions, was carried out by Mohoanyane in 1995 to elicit the effects of these expressions on ordinary speech. A particular focus was placed on figures of speech, such as metaphors, hyperbole and euphemisms.
For instance, in the expression ‘Thabo runs fast’ (‘Thabo kesefefane’) Thabo is an aeroplane which is an idiomatic expression.
47
In her research, Mohoanyani looks at idiomatic expressions using semantic theory;
she points out that Idiomatic expressions have hidden meanings which, in communication, could lead to misunderstandings if the hearer interpreted these expressions literally (Mwanambuyu, 2011:47). Therefore, interlocutors need to have a common ground for communication to succeed. The use of idiomatic expressions could mean using ambiguous expressions where two images are reflected in the hearer’s mind. This is a clear testimony as to why these expressions are used in certain domains where interlocutors are able to understand one another.
From Mohoanyane’s findings, it is evident that the use of certain language is not meant for outsiders. The use of idiomatic expression may result in ambiguous expressions where two images are reflected in the hearer’s mind. Therefore, these expressions may cause confusion and a misunderstanding which could lead to a breakdown in communication. It is advisable that where there may be problems brought about by the misinterpretation of expressions context should be provided or the speaker should use plain language which is easily understood by everyone participating in the conversation (Mwanambuyu, 2011:47).
Euphemisms may be regarded as idiomatic expressions because they have a hidden meaning which may lead to misunderstanding if the hearer misinterprets these expressions literally. Therefore, in situations where interlocutors do not have shared knowledge of the usage of euphemisms, no communication would take place, or miscommunication is likely to happen. Mohoanyane’s (1995) study benefitted this study of a socio-pragmatic analysis of Tshivenḓa euphemisms in the sense that this study was strongly concerned with context and common ground as important factors to understanding what is said by interlocutors.
In 2000 Leboela wrote an article entitled, “Sesotho Euphemisms” which was published in the National University of Sesotho (NUL) Journal of Research, Vol 8.
The purpose of the investigation was to show how euphemisms fit into the general theory of euphemism; how they offer some insight into the Basotho culture; and the range of euphemisms that exist in Sesotho. However, Laboela’s arrangement was not in a dictionary format; the euphemisms were grouped or categorized under general headings such as “drunkenness”, “flattery” and “madness”. The Sesotho
48
euphemisms attached to the headword were literally translated and a brief explanation of the background to the euphemism was given with - at times - a suggestion as to what type of euphemism it was, such as one of “understatement” or of “abstraction”.
Leboela (2000:45) quotes Rawson (1981) who points out that “all languages have euphemisms for they are used as society’s basic lingua non-franca and without them normal everyday life would become impossible.” Her article catalogues a selection of Sesotho euphemisms; it shows how they fit into the general theory of euphemism;
and how they offer some insight into Basotho culture - most of which were suggested by students at the National University of Lesotho (NUL). Although Leboela accepts the basic definition of euphemism given by Watson and Hill (1985) that it is a
“rendering of harsh, unpleasant, blunt terms in mild, inoffensive or quaint language”, she extends this definition of euphemism as being a form of hyperbole to give people or events added status, such as when a young child “graduates” from nursery school - as author’s eldest child did, complete with mortar–board, cap and gown!
She agrees that most euphemisms have to do with what Redfern (1994:56) refers to as the “prime subjects of anxiety and shame” which have been identified as “death”,
“the supernatural”, “sexuality”, “bodily functions” and “illness”. However, although these subjects are regarded as prime ones, they may vary from society to society, She queries whether many other cultures have euphemisms for a “lazy woman” - as is the case among the Basotho. Leboela’s (2000) research findings reveal that euphemisms are extended within a society in the sense that people of different social standing have their own prejudices as to what should and should not be euphemised. She suggests that the differences between euphemisms related to circumlocution, proverb, idiom and metaphor seem to be fuzzy and proves it, especially, to be true in Sesotho. She maintains that the Basotho have a deep appreciation of proverb and idiom as there is a substantial amount of published data pertaining to Sesotho proverbs and idioms. However, as far as she is aware, no comparable effort has been put into investigating Sesotho euphemisms as a concept due to the fact that euphemisms are not differentiated from proverbs and idioms.
49
According to one of Leboela’s NUL participants, euphemisms are referred to as
“maelana” in Sesotho, but “maelana” is translated into English as “idioms”. General comments made by other participants about their understanding of euphemisms suggest that euphemisms - even though they are not widely used in Sesotho – are, indeed, found in written and spoken Sesotho. Furthermore, three participants independently proposed that euphemisms were mostly used by elderly women for gossiping so that children could not make out what wasbeing said, suggesting that the adults were trying to hide information by using circumlocution in their euphemisms - a practice used by most elders worldwide. For example, describing Ntate as “hokhora” so that children do not know that Nthate likes a drop of “joala”
now and again. This means that Sesotho euphemisms are, largely, used for showing respect. However, one participant claimed that among the Basotho euphemisms were used mostly for both respect and mockery purposes. However, there were also euphemisms that could be referred to as inevitable - people cannot do without them.
Moreover, there was the suggestion by one participant that the explicit appreciation of the concept of euphemism was fairly new among the Basotho as these have always been embedded in the language:
It appears that they were very few, if any euphemisms in old Sesotho for there were old place names…such as Libono (buttocks) and Maine, which comes from hoima (to fall pregnant), subjects which are euphemised in contemporary Sesotho (Leboela, 2000:45).
According to Leboela (2000:47), in Sesotho positive euphemisms are a late development in the language and many of these are direct translations from English, used mostly by young people.
In the category of job titles, Leboela (2000:51) says that people who do manual labour are looked down upon by the rest of society; the very titles of their positions have been derogatory. Therefore, in more recent years an attempt has been made to uplift their status and the validity of the job they do by inventing new titles for these positions. The same has happened in the Basotho culture. For instance,
“Operaitaealemati” refers to a “sliding door operator” and the Basotho refer to such a person as a “kontae” - one responsible for opening sliding doors of minibuses or taxis for people to get on and off. “Kontae” is a Sothoform for “conductor” which is
50
seen as inferior and people doing this work would rather be referred to as “sliding door operators” because they feel that this description has the hint of a skilled job.
Another recent euphemism as expounded by Leboela (2000:52) for “house-maids” is
“mo-engineer” and “oafatse”/lithaela” literally translates as a “floor” or “tile engineer”.
Maids use the title of “mo-engineer” as it appears to uplift their status and sounds as though there is a skill attached to the work rather than just being a mere maid. “M’e Mary” is another title for maid which has been used longer and which most participants suggested was a common euphemism for a maid but it would only be used by the employer - not by other people. “M’e Mary” was used largely by expatriate employers because they found African names difficult to pronounce, so they made their lives easier by referring to their employees as “Mary”. One of the NUL participants was particularly insightful about positive euphemisms often being a direct translation from English, such as that “operaita” for “engineer” and (“li)thaele”
are words borrowed by Sesotho from English.
In Sotho culture husbands and wives may address one another rather formally by their actual names, John or Jane, or by the generic terms: “monnaoaka” (my husband) and “mosalioaka” (my wife). These various ways of addressing one’s spouse are considered more intimate and/or polite and might be seen as euphemisms. In Sesotho a husband can also be referred to with reference to the names of his children, especially by female in-laws to avoid using his actual name.
This means that a name used for a husband also depends on the sex of a newly- born child, such as “Rangoanana” (girl child) and “Ramoshanyana” (boy child).
Finally, there is “earathangpatsi” which literally means “one who cuts wood” and mean the husband as this was considered a man’s job among the Sotho. In this society, Leboela (2000:53) says that a secret lover of the wife may replace the husband in his absence and says he has “come to chop wood” (“rathapantsi”).
Sesotho euphemisms appear to show - at least at the category level - that there is little difference between Sesotho and English euphemisms as both languages cover topics, such as drunkenness madness and gossiping. Leboela’s recommendations for future studies suggest her particular interest in the remark made by Redfern (1994) that precise areas of taboo are culture and era specific but the urge to veto is
51
timeless and she would like to consider this remark in the light of the Sesotho euphemism. This recommendation has assisted this researcher with the present study in the sense that Tshivenḓa euphemisms could be regarded as used to evade taboo or as a politeness strategy. The present study has benefitted greatly from that of Leboela in the sense that it stimulated the thought of analysing Tshivenḓa euphemisms by identifying and categorising them in line with her study; equating them with those used in English; determining their social significance; and establishing whether or not the use of euphemism was related to social factors, such as age, gender, status, occupation and many other specifications cited in her dissertation. By and large, the reasons for using euphemism in Sesotho are more or less similar to those of the current study and, therefore, this research report was valid and useful for the this study.
Mukonde (2009) carried out a pragmatic analysis in which she applied a cooperative principle to investigate the pragmatic dimension of requests in Bemba. Mukonde believes that in pragmatics ‘face’ is the person’s public image and she goes further to explain how people arrive at, or infer, meanings which are not expressly stated.
She looks at the politeness principle which she defines as referring to the “proper social conduct and tactful consideration of others. What counts as polite in any given context was socio culturally and historically determined” (Mukonde, 2009: 7). In quoting Asher (1994), Mukonde goes on to say that in linguistic pragmatics, politeness has to do with the way in which linguistic action is expressed. She quotes Yule (1997:134) who points out that, pragmatic politeness is “showing awareness of another person’s face.”
In terms of her research questions, Mukonde (2009:13) wanted to explore the following:
Various linguistic forms that are used to express requests in Bemba.
Categories of request strategies that are used in Bemba,
How often do these categories of request strategies occur in Bemba?
How do request strategies in Bemba relate to social factors, such as age, gender, status, social distance, and authority?
52
Whether request strategies in Bemba support Searle and Brown and Levinson’s theoretical approaches?
After collecting data from a hundred and fifty participants who were selected from different social groups in terms of occupation, economic status, age and statusin two study areas, Kitwe and Chililabombwe, Mukonde (2009) research’s findings suggest the following:
(i) When a speaker is inferior to an addressee, s/he tends to be deferential and indirect in making a request.
(ii) In some cases request-making is accompanied by non-linguistic features, such as gestures, if the speaker is inferior to the hearer.
(iii) In terms of influence of status, the analysis of the distribution of the main request strategy types in the situation under survey revealed that
conventional indirectness is clearly the preferred strategy type for the situation in which both interlocutors have equal social status and in a request situation when the speaker’s social status is inferior to the hearer’s.
(iv) In the requests where the speaker is superior to the hearer, impositives dominate.
(v) The data analysis reveals, in general, that Searle’s Speech Act Theory and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theories - even though they were developed and based on English - also apply to Bemba.
She recommends that further study be undertaken to identify other factors that may affect request-making in Bemba and that the information gleaned from this study be disseminate to researchers investigating other speech acts and politeness formulae.
It was from her recommendations that the ideas of speech acts and politeness formulae integrated in this study as another aspect of investigation. The theories which Mukonde used, which included Searle’s (1975) Indirectness Communicative Theory Speech Act and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory, to carry out the pragmatic analysis of requests in Bemba also proved beneficial to this study of a socio-pragmatic analysis of Tshivenḓa euphemisms.
53